User talk:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Evad37. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Ready

@Czar: It's ready! - Evad37 [talk] 04:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Evad37, thanks! Works great! Only thing I've noticed is that I have to activate the pop-up during the page load. If I wait for the page to finish loading, the pop-up will hang ("Move To Draft... Loading..."). I have a much of deprecated module notices in my JS console (likely from other scripts?) but otherwise no errors. czar 05:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Czar: Can you try again now? - Evad37 [talk] 06:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

All good! Thanks! czar 06:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Log draftifications?

User:Evad37, have there been any thoughts about whether users draftifications should be logged? Are they logged and browseable already? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

You can search toollabs:jackbot/snottywong/commentsearch.html for "Undersourced, incubate in draftspace (via script)" czar 04:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

You can also look for that comment in a user's move log, eg for Czar: [1] - Evad37 [talk] 06:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Draftspace move notice

Dumping some text from a prior (unused?) version of the talk page notice, in case it can be useful for posterity

<includeonly>{{subst:#if:{{{nowelcome|}}}|== [[{{{1}}}]] ==|{{subst:Firstarticle if new|target={{{1}}}|nothanks={{{nothanks|}}}}}</includeonly>== [[{{{1}}}]] == <includeonly>}}</includeonly> [[File:Merge-split-transwiki default.svg|left|link=|48px|]] An article you recently edited, [[{{{1}}}]], has been [[Wikipedia:Moving a page|moved]] to [[Wikipedia:Draft|draftspace]] for incubation. We only publish Wikipedia articles on topics that receive [[WP:GNG|significant coverage]] in multiple [[WP:RS|reliable]], [[WP:IS|independent sources]]. <small>([[WP:42|?]])</small> As of now, this article needs more reliable sources. Please continue to work on the article. When you feel that it is ready for re-evaluation, you can submit it for [[WP:Articles for Creation|Articles for Creation]] review by following the template on the article.

czar 07:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Tag redirects

(Note to self:) Should be checking if users are pagemovers/admins, and for those that aren't, tag the redirect thats left behind with {{Db-r2}} – per [2], [3]. - Evad37 [talk] 03:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Done - Evad37 [talk] 04:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't work if you have a "Page" menu

Due to one Gadget or common.js script or another, I have an empty "Move" menu and next to it a "Page" menu, with the following contents: Page logs..., Analysis..., Tools..., Latest Diff, Move Page, Purge Cache, Subpages (the "..." ones all have submenus), and after that a "User" menu that also has submenus, if I'm in User or User_talk namespaces.

The "Move to draft" option doesn't appear anywhere.
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 21:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: You can now choose where to add the link: Add var m2d_portlet = "portletID"; to your common.js, replacing portletID with one of the portlet id values from Help:Customizing toolbars – Evad37 [talk] 00:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

That didn't work for me either. I'm seeing some other problems, too. I think I may need to start removing scripts (and calls to scripts) from my common.js page one at a time to debug this. (It's tedious, and I don't have the patience for it right now). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 07:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: you missed the semicolon when you added the m2d_portlet line - Evad37 [talk] 07:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Derrrp! Fixed. Still not seeing the Move to Draft item (nor one of the other ones I'm trying to add), so there must be some other error in there, either in my own script or one of the ones I'm importing. Gotta go to work now, though. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 19:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Still not working. Zero scripts I add that do anything with the stuff at Help:Customizing toolbars has any effect at all. Tested so far:

Disabled meta:MoreMenu, fromSpecial:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, under "Appearance". Had no effect.
Removed WikiWidgets code (experimental and moribund) from my common.js; this was a large block of code imported from de.wikipedia for testing of a feature to maybe enable at en.wp and it didn't go anywhere. Removing it had no effect.

I don't see anything else that would be an obvious culprit. I guess I'll try at WP:VPTECH. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 09:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Restrict access?

Per [4], would it make sense to limit this tool to users with the "New Page Reviewer" user right? I haven't seen any abuse/issues personally, but wanted to pass along the mention czar 02:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

My idle thoughts ... If the script just automates actions/edits/messages that any editor could do anyway, isn't it better to rely on the tool logging non new page reviewers doing this? Restricting access would make it harder to tract improper draftifications.

Under the draft guideline discussed at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol#Clarification_and_guidance_for_draftification, unilateral draftifications are to be restricted to New Page Reviewers (including admins). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

For posterity, that draft proposal does not appear to have been implemented czar 22:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, should be attended to. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Recording redirects to main article

A consequence of moving articles to draft is that, once the redirect from mainspace has been deleted (WP:R2), redirects to the missing article are also deleted (WP:G8). See the sad, sad story at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 82#Draftification of over 500 cricket biographies. Could your gadget somehow record which redirects were pointing to the article at the time of the move? Maybe as comments near the edited categories? I don't really trust talk pages being kept under these types of move. Also, a practice I regard as abusive is when a long-established, multiply-edited article is moved to draft unilaterally. Your gadget's message says the article has been recently created. Can a check be made as to whether or not it is years old? Thincat (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

How is that discussion related to this script? Mass AWB moves are not equivalent to this individual-article, editor-directed script. Not that I'm opposed to setting a time limit, especially if misuse of the script was a function of its design, but I don't see how that would be the case here. Moreover, sometimes a "new article" has languished in userspace for a long time, and that shouldn't impair the script's function at the editor's discretion. czar 22:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thinking from the perspective of the unimplemented draftification rules ... "a "new article" has languished in userspace for a long time" is a problem concept. Are you assuming that this "new article" is unreviewed? If you can replace "new article" with "unreviewed article", it is fully consistent with the proposed rules, and I think standard practice. If one reviewer thinks it belong in mainspace, on top of the author who put it there, then a third author who thinks it should be draftified should use PROD or AfD, no? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Or... it can be a single sentence and a primary source that has sat in userspace for a year and moved to mainspace with no added info. My point was that the earliest edit on the "article" isn't necessary an indicator of whether the content is ready for mainspace. The script should be able to work under that circumstance, no matter the preferred course of action. czar 02:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The earliest edit on the "article" is a terrible indicator of whether the content is ready for mainspace. It is far worse if it ignores age in mainspace versus draft or userspace.
I think, and will propose subject to discussion here and elsewhere, that the script should check that the article is unreviewed, and whether the draftifier is a NPReviewer or admin. Editors who are not yet even new page reviewers should not be unilaterally draftifying pages that reviewers have reviewed. Who could disagree there? This is a pretty low standard, and loss of the NPReviewer right an appropriate response to improper or irresponsible draftifying. Wiggle room will exist for a NPReviewer to reverse the reviewing of a previous reviewer, but doing so should be reported at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Some technical comments: Implementing checks for the page's review status and whether the user is a NPReviewer/admin are quite feasible. Age in mainspace is more problematic, since pages may have been moved around, possibly even moved into and out of mainspace multiple times. One problem that can't be solved with any script changes is that users can simply do a normal page move to draftspace without using the script... so how much impact will restricting the script have? But I'm willing to implement whatever the consensus is (as long as there's a practical way to do so with javascript) - Evad37 [talk] 04:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Per the previous section, I'm fine with a check of NPP/admin permissions, though I have yet to see evidence that there is any actual problem to warrant such a restriction (read: I see no necessary reason to limit the script to NPP, nevermind that any non-NPP user could simply clone the script and remove the single line...) czar 05:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

At User_talk:SmokeyJoe#Draftifying_old_articles., Thincat points me to a problem at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 82#Draftification of over 500 cricket biographies. Apart from that, I have not heard of actual large problems. Some people, User:SoWhy for example, appear to have a strong concern that some people may inappropriately use draftification as a below-the-radar pseudo-deletion method, acting with bias if not malice, or people acting recklessly, carelessly or ineptly. I share this concern to a mild extent. The hypothetical nature of the worst of the concern is an explanation, I guess, for a lack of drive to complete this job of establishing a guideline for draftification. I think this draftification guidelineshould be written, as an effort to document best practices.

My leaning is to merely write a rule into the guideline that non-NPRs may not unilaterally draftify others' pages. It provides a stick to beat someone with if they are found draftifying inappropriately. Surely, anyone wishing to draftify others' articles should seek the NPR permission. Someone found breaking the rule should be encouraged to request the permission.

A check for whether the page is already reviewed, and for the permissions of the draftifier, could pause the script to give the editor a warning. There is little point in coding a hard restriction if the editor can do it manually without the script, and if committed to the action can rewrite their own script. The hypothetical case of the need for the checks is someone doing something they aren't ready to do, and in this case a bit of information for them is appropriate. Probably most often, coded checks like this may be triggered by experienced editors using alternative accounts, or the new article's author responding to a reviewers' suggestion that they consider moving their new article to draftspace. In these cases, I would want the editor to be able to acknowledge the warning and proceed on their own judgement. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Steering back to what was, for me, my main question: could your gadget somehow record which redirects were pointing to the article at the time of the move? This would invariably help any return to main space, regardless of the merits of the draftification. Thincat (talk) 09:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
- It should be possible, will look into coding it. - Evad37 [talk] 03:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  - Thank you. Now, mainly in reply to Czar, I'm not suggesting that this script has been misused, or would be. Rather the cricket example shows moves with what the person moving the articles, and others supporting the bulk move, believed and still believe were for entirely good motives. In the absence of any guidelines, some people think it is appropriate to draftify long-established articles on the basis that some of them are likely to be unsatisfactory and leaving other people to review them. They see draftification as a rather effective form of tagging. Many of the cricket articles were indeed unsatisfactory (and have gone to MFD), but others were not and have been restored, sometimes after improvement. I hope this script can be run in such a way as to help people recover articles from this form of "tagging". Thincat (talk) 09:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Done – The script will now give a warning if the page has already been NPP reviewed, allowing the user to continue or cancel; and any redirects pointing to the page will be recorded in a comment in the wikitext, like so. - Evad37 [talk] 02:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Links to Gadgets from WP:Drafts

Wikipedia:Drafts#Draftification_of_pages_from_Article_Space linked only to User:Mr. Stradivarius/gadgets/Draftify. How does that compare to User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js? User:Mr. Stradivarius? User:Evad37? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: The main difference is that Mr. Stradivarius's script is for userspace→draftspace moves, whereas this script is for articlespace→draftspace moves. Mr. Stradivarius's script also has some admin-y stuff like soft-blocking and suggetsing renames, but doesn't do commenting out of non-free files, turning categories into links, or updating of talk page banners (which wouldn't usually be applicable to userspace drafts), and it also doesn't make a log of draftications. - Evad37 [talk] 07:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Links

@Evad37: A couple of [[Draft:$1|$1]] in config.wikitext need to be updated to use $2. When the draft and article titles are not the same the links are incorrect. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@JJMC89:

Fixed, link targets in the notification message are now updated when the target title is changed. (wasn't quite as simple as your suggestion though) - Evad37 [talk] 01:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Draftifying template user message

Moved from User talk:Evad37 § Draftifying template user message

– - Evad37 [talk] 01:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Hallo, I've been talking to @CASSIOPEIA: about the message he left here, and I see that you're the author of the text which puzzled me. I don't think that "please follow the confirms on the Articles for Creation template atop the page" is very clear. Could you perhaps replace it by "... please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button" ? PamD 08:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Evad37, Good day. I share the same thought as @PamD:. Let us know if you would help. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@PamD and CASSIOPEIA:

Fixed. That "confirms" was originally "prompts", but accidentally got changed somewhere along the way. I like your suggestions better though, so I've changed it to that, but concluding with "at the the top of page." - Evad37 [talk] 01:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Would it also be useful if the template message had a hidden note to say where it came from, like the standard "uw" messages do? It would have made it easier to find you to offer this feedback. PamD 05:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Evad37, Thank you for the assistance. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Db vs. db

I noticed that a few R2-tagged redirects had been listed at Special:ShortPages for quite some days:

All were tagged with {{Db-r2}} by MoveToDraft, but they were not found in CAT:R2. Changing {{Db-r2}} to {{db-r2}} in Sébastien Cibois made it appear in CAT:R2. I have left the others as they were so you can have a look at it. Great script, as always, many thanks. Sam Sailor 06:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Just doing any edit, including a WP:NULL edit, will make the pages appear in the category. Why its happening in the first place I'm not entirely sure – it seems similar to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_150#Pages_not_being_added_to_maintenance_categories_in_a_timely_fashion / phab:T132467, except there hasn't been any category changes in the underlying template. - Evad37 [talk] 08:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Correct, any edit will apparently do. Sam Sailor 09:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Reported at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Pages not listed in CAT:R2 despite edit to add Template:Db-r2 - Evad37 [talk] 09:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

There is only one template: {{db-r2}} is merely an alternative way of writing {{Db-r2}}. Capitalisation should make no difference whatsoever. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Redlinked articles

On redlinked articles such as Ted Metz (recently deleted), the "Move to draft" link is still currently shown. The script should be fixed to not show the "Move to draft" link when viewing a non-existent page. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@GeoffreyT2000:

Fixed - Evad37 [talk] 01:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)